Friday, January 11, 2013

U.S. Health Care Ranks Last

As reported in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (1.10.13) a study by the Institute of Medicine
found that our health care woes are much worse than we thought. In fact, over the last 30 years, as compared
to other Western countries, we ranked last in nearly every health
indicator. You read that correctly; we
ranked last, yet we spend more money on health care than any other country on
the planet.

The study found the average life
expectancy at birth for American men born in 2007 (75.6 years) was the lowest
among all the countries studied and nearly four years shorter than
Switzerland. Women did not fare
better. Their life expectancy was 80.8
years, second from the last and five years shorter than Japan’s.

Neonatal mortality is a strong indicator
of a country’s health status. We spend
more money on neonatal care than any other country. Where do we rank compared to 16 other Western
countries? Dead last.

You might think we beat the pack on cardiovascular
disease since we take more statin medications than any other people on the
planet. Well, you might think
wrong. Death rates from cardiovascular
disease have been declining world-wide.
But, in the U.S., the mortality rate from heart disease is 129 per
100,000 which is higher than every country studied except Finland. Perhaps all those statin prescriptions
aren’t really helping!

One of the authors, Dr. Steven Woolf
stated, “Something is fundamentally wrong. Something at the core is causing the
U.S. to slip behind these other high-income countries.” He is right, something is fundamentally
wrong. That something is conventional
medicine’s reliance on pharmaceutical medications that work by poisoning
enzymes or blocking receptors in the body.
More often than not, these drugs treat the symptoms of the illness
rather than the underlying cause.

I have been writing about the
problems with conventional medicine in my Natural Way to Health newsletter and
in my books. I believe the whole medical
education system needs to be overhauled.
We need to train doctors to understand the importance of the body’s
biochemistry and how to maintain and optimize it. I can assure you that most drug therapies
adversely affect the body’s biochemistry.
Natural therapies that optimize vitamin, mineral, and hormonal levels
allow the body’s biochemistry to optimally function.

Finally, as physicians, we need to
address the dietary needs of our patients.
We need to educate patients on how to eat better in order for their food
to supply them with optimal nutrients.
Unless we make radical changes in the health care system, we will
continue to waste more money and have more illness.

Friday, January 4, 2013

How To Increase Your Risk of Dying? Take a Statin Drug

If you are elderly,
how can you increase your risk of dying?The answer is simple:Take a
statin drug.

Statin drugs
are the most profitable drugs for the Big Pharma Cartel.Lipitor, Baycol, Zocor, and Crestor are
examples of statin medications.These
drugs are prescribed by doctors to lower cholesterol levels.Do statin drugs lower cholesterol levels?Yes, they are very efficient at it.They work by poisoning an enzyme, HMG-CoA
Reductase.

Conventional
medicine has succeeded in convincing doctors and patients that we all need to
lower our cholesterol levels in order to reduce our risk of developing heart
disease.However, this is no long-term data that shows
that lowering your cholesterol level by taking a medication reduces your mortality
rate. In fact, the best studies of statin medications show they can lower the
risk of developing a non-fatal heart attack by about 1% after two or three
years of use.That is the benefit of
taking a medication that poisons a crucial enzyme in the body and has been
associated with an increased in cancer, ALS, muscle aches and pains, as well as
a decline in mental function.

What
prompted this post?An article in
Clinical Nutrition revealed that compared to elderly patients with cholesterol levels
of 200mg/dl, those with cholesterol levels of 183mg/dl had a significantly
higher death rate. (1)The authors found
that for every 1mg/dl increase in serum cholesterol, the death rate was reduced by 0.4%.You read that correctly—elevated cholesterol
levels protect the elderly from death.The
Honolulu Heart Program found that men aged 71-93 years in the lowest total cholesterol
group had a 64% increase risk in death as compared to men with the highest cholesterol
levels.(2)The Honolulu study was
reported in 2001.It is too bad the
media does not trumpet these results.

There are
numerous studies showing that there is an inverse
correlation between cholesterol levels and the death rate in people over 59
years old.That means an elevated cholesterol level
protects the elderly.However, it is not
just the elderly that are protected.Cholesterol is a vital substance for all the cells in the body.Adequate cholesterol levels are needed to
promote the health of the cell.Furthermore,
cholesterol is needed to produce all the adrenal and sex hormones in the
body.

I have
written extensively about this topic in my book, Drugs That Don’t Work and NaturalTherapies That Do.Cholesterol-lowering medications should be pulled from the market
place.You can simply look at the
biochemical pathway where cholesterol is produced and see the dangers that can
occur when that pathway is poisoned.I
predict that within five to ten years, we will have learned our lessons about
the statin drugs and they will fall out of favor.It is not the first time conventional medicine
has been wrong—just look at the disastrous story of DES which was prescribed to
millions of women in the 1950’s.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Eating Fish Poisons Your Brain

Can eating fish poison your brain? An article describing two new reports
published ahead of a United Nations conference on mercury pollution found that
mercury in fish is having an adverse effect on brain function.

“There does appear to be evidence now, fairly persuasive
evidence, that adverse effects occur from {eating} normal amounts of seafood,”
claimed an advisor to the World Health Organization.

Unfortunately, all of our seafood has been contaminated with
mercury. The most vulnerable individuals
include children and pregnant women. According
the European Union, pregnant or breastfeeding women should not eat tuna more
than twice a week. The FDA has stated they
should avoid shark, swordfish, or king mackerel. (Global Post.
December 4, 2012)

Comment: Mercury is
the second or third most-toxic agent known to mankind. It poisons hundreds of enzymes in the
body. Furthermore, mercury toxicity
causes neurological problems such as memory decline as well as Alzheimer’s and
Parkinson’s disease.Mercury toxicity
has been associated with many chronic illnesses including heart disease and heart
failure.

Should you avoid fish?
I am not sure how to answer that question. All fish is poisoned with mercury. However, there are benefits to eating
fish. Now, it is time for me to get off
the fence: I don’t think you need to
avoid eating fish forever. However, If
you are going to eat fish, I suggest taking alpha lipoic acid (300mg) with the
meal. Alpha lipoic acid can help bind
mercury and allow for its excretion. I would advise limiting your intake of white
tuna and the fish mentioned above. One final note about sushi—sushi can contain
very high mercury levels. It should be
limited and not eaten frequently.

For years, I used to eat white tuna every day for lunch. When I checked my mercury levels I was not
happy—they were off the chart. It took
me over two years to detoxify from this high level Needless to say, I do not eat a lot of white
tuna fish anymore.

Unfortunately, fish is not the only source of mercury we are
exposed to. Dental amalgam fillings contain
50% mercury by weight. Flu shots still
are preserved with mercury. There is absolutely NO reason to put mercury in a
tooth or to inject it in your body.

For 20 years, I have tested thousands of patients for toxicities. Unfortunately, I have found mercury toxicity affects over 75% of the patients I have checked. A holistic health care practitioner can check you for
mercury toxicity and guide you on proper detoxification techniques.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Should You Get An Ineffective, Toxic, Flu Vaccine?

I was in CVS the other day and saw
the poster stating, “Flu vaccines offered here.”I thought to myself, who would go to CVS and
get a flu shot?When I asked the
pharmacist if a lot of their clients receive the flu shot she replied, “It is a
busy part of our practice.”Ifyou go to the CVS website, you can see a
coupon for 20% off your shopping if you get a flu shot.Is a flu shot worth 20% off your shopping at a CVS store? After reading my article, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. I have posted numerous blogs about the flu shot over the years and wrote a long article in my Natural Way to Health Newsletter (November, 2010) about the ineffectiveness and dangers of the flu vaccine. More information about my newsletter can be found here:

A new study from the University of
Minnesota found that flu vaccines are not very effective.(1)(Note:The University of Michigan Wolverines beat
them soundly in football 35-13 and, hopefully, will beat Ohio this weekend—GO
BLUE!.)

University of Minnesota’s Center for
Infectious Disease Research and Policy studied 12,000 peer-reviewed
publications dating back to 1936.Michael Osterholm from the University of Minnesota stated, “We found
that current influenza vaccine protection is substantially lower than for most
routine recommended vaccines and is suboptimal.”The scientists reported that the vaccine
protected adults at a rate of approximately 59% and offered little protection
for seniors.

However, Mr. Osterholm still
encourages people to get the flu shot.It is too bad he missed a chance to state what should be apparent from
this study.He might have said, “There
is absolutely no reason to give the flu vaccine to the elderly since not a
single study has shown it to be effective for seniors.”

What about the rest of us?If I told you a medication would have a
slightly better than 50% chance of helping you avoid the flu would you take
it?Furthermore, if I told you this
medication was contaminated with the second or third most toxic substance known
to mankind--mercury--would that influence your decision?

I think the decision is easy—wash
your hands, take vitamin C and eat good food. That is a better anti-flu regimen
when compared to a toxic, ineffective vaccine.

The current tragic situation regarding contaminated compounded steroid injections causing stroke and death should alert women to the danger of using mass produced compounded bioidentical hormones as a menopause therapy.

ARE COMPOUNDED BIOIDENTICAL HORMONES REALLY SAFE?

The concept of bioidentical
hormones, popularized by the likes of Suzanne Somers and Oprah Winfrey, has
created real confusion. While the term has been used to refer to many well-tested,
regulatory (FDA) approved, brand-name HT products containing hormones
chemically identical to hormones produced by women (primarily in the ovaries),
such as estradiol or progesterone, in the wider medical market it has assumed a
different meaning. It is most often used to prescribe custom-made HT
formulations (called “bioidentical HT”, or BHT) that are compounded for
an individual according to a healthcare provider’s prescription.

It cannot be adequately
emphasized that the FDA has not tested these products for efficacy or safety,
and they are not approved by any regulatory agency. Indeed, safety information
is not consistently provided to women along with their prescription, as is
required by the FDA with commercially available HT products (the patient
package insert). Moreover, batch standardization and purity may be uncertain
(is this month’s prescription identical to last month’s?).

The FDA has actually
sample-tested products from some compounding pharmacies and found unapproved
contaminants, dosing errors, and other problems. As a result the FDA ruled that
compounding pharmacies have made claims about the safety and effectiveness of
BHT that is unsupported by clinical trial data and therefore considered to be
false and misleading. The FDA has also stated that there is no scientific basis
for using saliva testing to adjust hormone levels.

Much of the motivation behind
this industry is explained in one word – PROFIT. Indeed the cost of the
medications to women could be an issue. Medical insurance companies view many
compounded products as experimental drugs and will not cover the cost.

MEDICO-LEGAL RISKS FOR
PHYSICIANS AND NURSES

The prescribing of compounded
drugs involves the triad of patient, physician/nurse prescriber, and
compounding pharmacy. When prescribing an FDA-approved drug according to
acceptable indications, in the event of an adverse outcome the nurse/physician
is invariably indemnified by the FDA approval process and background support of
a major pharmaceutical company, thus unlikely to face personal liability.

Compounders, unlike with
FDA-approved products, are not required to provide a patient package insert
listing risks and benefits, and their marketing invariably has minimized
possibility of risks. Consequently, prescribers of compounded products would be
personally exposed should there be an adverse event as a result of
administering a product for which neither the prescriber or compounder can
prove to have been pure and free of active contaminants, of correct dose,
sterile etc. Providers should also be aware that the liability for using a
non-FDA-approved drug can be significant, and possible negative consequences
can include the invalidation of their malpractice insurance, personal
liability, and possible criminal prosecution.

You can immunize yourself to a
large extent against malpractice exposure. The simple and direct approach would
be to only prescribe FDA-approved products.

Hopefully the extent of the
current compounding drug tragedy can be contained.

The bottom line is that for
virtually all women with indications for therapy, FDA-approved HT will provide
appropriate “bioidentical” therapy without the risks and cost of custom
compounded preparations.

Simply put, buyers beware!

Have a great week,

Wulf Utian MD PhD DSc

The Boy Who Cried Wulf

(This is a rebuttal to Dr. Wulf Utian’s blog on the American Nurse Today website reprinted above. This post was co-written by myself and my colleague Dr. Erika Schwartz.)It is important to state that compounded medications are ubiquitous in our health care system. Intravenous therapies, pain medications, chemotherapeutic agents, asthma medications, and even orange flavored antibiotics are all created by compounding pharmacies across the country. Our health care system could not function without the expertise of compounding pharmacies.“The current tragic situation regarding contaminated, compounded steroid injections causing stroke and death should alert women to the danger of using mass produced compounded bioidentical hormones as a menopause therapy.” That quote was part of a blog written by Wulf Utian, M.D., founder of the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Utian got one thing right; it is a tragic situation that occurred with the contaminated steroids causing meningitis and death. The pharmacy responsible for this tragedy, the same as any FDA approved drug that causes pain and suffering to patients, should be thoroughly investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted. However, to disparage all compounding pharmacies for the actions of one is as ridiculous as blaming all drug companies for one bad drug. Dr. Utian’s comments remind us of the hormone debacle he started in 2002 which, to this day, has left millions of women and their doctors confused and full of unjustified fears. Dr. Utian claimed that bioidentical hormones had the same adverse effects that synthetic hormones caused. This has never been shown to be true as bioidentical hormones have an impeccable safety record. It reminds us of the nursery rhyme about the boy who continually cried wolf.Unfortunately, there was nothing else constructive to Dr. Utian's vitriolic blog.His sole purpose was to use this particular incident to further intimidate and confuse prescribers and users of compounded bioidentical hormones into fearing that all compounding pharmacies are providing dangerous, unregulated products. Utian, who appears to function as a pharmaceutical spokesperson rather than a patient advocate, would have you believe that compounding pharmacies are rogue businesses. His claims are blatantly false. Drug manufacturers make FDA-approved prescription medications for mass markets. In contrast, compounding pharmacies make individualized drugs when the patient's needs can’t be met by commercially available medications. In fact, compounding pharmacists have been mixing drugs with an excellent track record of safety and effectiveness long before the advent of the age of mass-produced pharmaceuticals.All pharmacies are licensed and regulated at the state level by pharmacy boards. USP is standard in pharmaceutical and compounding pharmacies. National practice standards are established by the Pharmacy Compounding Accrediting Board (PCAB). Compounding pharmacies are strictly regulated at the state level using the same active ingredients in their compounds as FDA-approved drugs available at your local pharmacies. "...the FDA has not tested {the products used by compounding pharmacies} for efficacy or safety, and {these products} are not approved by any regulatory agency,” stated Dr. Utian. The fact is that bioidentical hormone ingredients (e.g., estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, thyroid), used by compounding pharmacies, are purchased from suppliers that are registered and inspected by the FDA. Most compounding pharmacies purchase their raw materials from the Professional Compounding Centers of America (PCCA). PCCA purchases their materials though FDA-registered suppliers and verifies their potency through the same testing procedures that pharmaceutical companies use.Dr. Utian claims the motivation behind the compounding pharmacy industry is “…explained in one word-PROFIT.” Certainly Dr. Utian, who seems to speak for pharmaceutical companies and has even a scholarship in his name paid for by Pfizer, understands the word profit very well. Is there a distinction between profit made by Big Pharma or a compounding pharmacy? Yes, Big Pharma makes more profit and produces drugs that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.In fact, pharmaceutical drugs have been shown to be the third or fourth most common cause of death in the US.(1) The number of deaths from compounded medicines pales in comparison to the number of deaths caused by prescription medications. As we have previously stated, any medication-related death should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Dr. Utian uses intimidation tactics claiming that doctors who use compounded medications are exposing themselves to increased malpractice risk and should stop using these items. This would include bioidentical hormones. For those of us who rely on compounded medications to meet the unique needs of our patients, the outcome of this type of gross intimidation would be to provide suboptimal care and become doctors who only care about malpractice and not the patients. We denounce this suggestion and blatant affront to good medical practice.Together, we have used compounded, bioidentical hormones and other compounded medications in our medical practice for over 40 years in tens of thousands of patients. We work closely with our compounding pharmacists and find their skill invaluable and supportive of individualized patient care. We have been writing and teaching doctors and patients about the effectiveness of compounded, bioidentical hormones for many years. We strongly believe Dr. Utian would do better to focus his energy on helping the FDA figure out why FDA-approved prescription drugs are the third or fourth leading cause of death in the United States.
(1): JAMA. 4.15.98. 279. N. 15. P. 1200-6. This article can be accessed here: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187436David Brownstein, M.D. Erika Schwartz M.D.Drs. Schwartz and Brownstein are founding members of the Bioidenticalhormoneinitiative.org that presently has over 1,000 professional members.David Brownstein, M.D.5821 W. Maple Rd. Ste. 192West Bloomfield, MI 48323www.drbrownstein.comO: (248) 851-1600F: (248) 851-0421

Erika Schwartz MD,PCwww.DrErika.com200 West 57th StSuite 502New York, NY 10019O. 212-873-3420F. 212-937-2279Dr. Brownstein's book, The Miracle of Natural Hormones describes how natural , bioidentical hormones can be safely used. More information can be found at the link below.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Support Labelling for Genetically Modified Foods

On November
6, 2012, California voters will be voting on Proposition 37.Proposition 37, if passed, would require food
labeling for genetically modified foods.A ‘yes’ vote would favor the new food labeling laws.

The European
Union as well as Japan and Australia require genetically modified organisms (GMO)
foods to be labeled.What is wrong with
informing us what is in the food we are buying?

You can
guess who is against the labeling of GMO foods.Big food companies such as Kellogg Co., Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico, Kraft
Foods, Coco-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, H.J. Heinz, Hershey, and Ocean Spray
have donated millions of dollars to convince voters to vote ‘no’.

It is
unbelievable that food manufacturers are not required to label what is
in their products.Did you know that
approximately 93% of the soybeans, 90% of canola and 88% of corn grown in the U.S. are from genetically
modified (GM) crops?The question to
think about is, “Is there anything wrong with GM crops?

Soy has been
genetically modified to withstand the herbicide Roundup.GM soy plants are resistant to Roundup.Therefore, crops of GM soy crops can be
sprayed with copious amounts of Roundup to kill weeds and enhance the
yield.Unfortunately, the final product
containing this GM soy also contains the herbicide Roundup.

As a medical
doctor, I would highly advise you not to ingest any amount of Roundup if you
can avoid it.That sentence is stated
with some sarcasm as you don’t need to be a medical doctor to understand that eating
herbicides is probably not a good thing.

A recent
study showed that rats fed a lifetime of genetically modified corn suffered
tumors and damage to multiple organs. (1)GM corn is also resistant to Roundup and it is widely used on GM corn
crops.As I previousely stated, 88% of U.S. corn
crops are genetically modified.The
pictures below showed tumors that rats developed from eating trace amounts (at
levels legally allowed in the water supply) of Roundup.Furthermore, rats fed GM corn and traces of
Roundup suffered severe organ damage to the liver and kidneys.It is important to note that the GM corn used
in this study is produced at Monsanto and is widely used across the U.S.The end product of this GM corn is readily available
in many consumer products including cereals and chips.

I don’t know
about you, but I would prefer not to eat food that has herbicides in it.And, I would also like to know if the food I
am buying is genetically modified.Unfortunately,
our government doesn’t seeit this way
as food companies are not required to list GM ingredients on food labels.This is yet another example of our government
not working for us.If the government
worked for us, it would be a no-brainer to properly label GM-containing
products so that we, the consumers, can decide whether we want to ingest those
products.

However, we
have a chance to win one if California voters pass Proposition 37.There is absolutely no reason not to pass
it---we are just asking for transparency in food labels.It this passes in California, proper food labeling
will eventually come to the rest of the country.

I have
donated money to the Organic Consumers Fund in support of this bill.Monsanto and other companies, who do not want
labeling of GM foods, have been blitzing California with ads against this
proposition.I encourage you to consider
donating to the Organic Consumers Fund to fight back.You can go here to find more
information:http://organicconsumersfund.org/donate/david-goliath.cfm.I have no financial obligations with this
group.